(2) Follow-up. There are two concerns associated with follow-up submission. 

Customers sometimes submit follow-ups for a reply even though the reply is already posted to 

the web or for an SDR which has been forwarded to another activity for response. Although 

automated systems should retransmit the original reply upon receipt of such a follow-up, it 

would be preferable for the reporting activity to first determine the status of the SDR using the 

query function in WebSDR. If there is no record of a reply, a follow-up should be submitted and 

directed to the last identified action activity. There is also a concern with multiple follow-ups 

which tend to occur when there are hidden processing problems. A revised procedure was 

recommended to reduce the frustration encountered when multiple follow-ups fail to bring the 

appropriate response. The SDR report number of the original should be included in the followup. For transactional exchange, the DAAS-assigned control number should be included. POC 

information and a follow-up date are required, as well as a narrative entry to provide clarification 

for the follow-up. If no response is received to the follow-up within 30 calendar days, the 

originator should contact the Defense Distribution Center (DDC) for DD shipments or the source 

of supply (SoS) to request assistance. The DDC or SoS will ensure that response with 

disposition or interim status is provided with 30 calendar. With regard to contacting the DDC, 

they have agreed to provide a generic e-mail address for these types of inquiries. Ms. Hilert said 

she would have DAASC post a message on WebSDR indicating that if no response is received 

after the first follow-up, the submitter should contact either the DDC or the SoS. ACTION: 

DLMSO will update published guidance and provide Web-SDR instructions upon receipt of 

DDC generic email address. 

 (3) Reconsideration Requests, which occur when the originator does not concur 

with a reply/disposition received in response to an SDR, the request is submitted indicating a 

contested decision. The routing rules for WebSDR currently differ from the joint instruction. 

After discussion, it was agreed that the regulation should be updated based upon the following 

logic. Reconsideration requests pertaining to DD shipments will be forwarded to the shipping 

depot (excludes Army, pending USMC decision on original report routing); all others will be 

forwarded to the SoS, citing the SDR report number of the original report. For transactional 

exchange, include the DAAS-assigned control number. Requests for reconsideration 

transactions require all data that was in the previous SDR submission and a narrative entry to 

provide justification for reconsideration. POC information for the new submission and 

submission date is also required. An SDR must be in a closed status before a request for 

reconsideration can be submitted (this means the action activity reply to the SDR must be 

recorded with the applicable Component system). The recipients of the request for 

reconsideration will review all data relating to the problem and provide a response to the 

reporting activity with information to all concerned parties within 45 calendar days. When the 

shipping depot is unable to respond to the contested SDR, the depot will forward the SDR to the 

SoS for resolution (when the SDR is forwarded, the 45 days for processing and evaluation will 

begin when the SDR is received by the SoS). ACTION: DLMSO will update published 

guidance. The process change will not impact WebSDR programming at this time. 

 c. Army Pseudo Receipt SDRs. BACKGROUND: This is problem, first reported in 

1999 and discussed at several Supply Process Review Committee (SPRC) meetings, is related to 

the Army implementation of the Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) which included 

automatic generation of SDRs for non-receipt or shortage (based on MRA with discrepancy code 
4

F). Many of these SDRs are prepared while shipment is intransit or without knowing the 

material has been received after the SDR was generated. These pseudo receipt SDRs are then 

submitted by hard-copy without research. These SDRs result in significant unnecessary 

workload for the action activity. The Army agreed during the SPRC Meeting in May 2002, that 

SDRs triggered by pseudo receipts would be verified by the submitting activity and those 

believed to be valid would be annotated as “Verified as true SDR (ROD).” DISCUSSION: 

Ms. Vickie Albert, DLA SDR Program Manager, indicated that DLA is receiving a large volume 

of pseudo-receipt SDRs without proper verification. She emphasized these SDRs will not be 

worked by DLA until they are verified by the submitter. Patrice Burklund, Army SDR 

representative, and Judy Reger, Non-Army Managed Items (NAMI) Office, were not aware of 

the previous Army agreement to research the SDRs prior to submitting to action activities. Ms. 

Hilert provided copies of the previous meeting minutes. Ms. Hilert also indicated that in the 

future Army systems should be creating these SDRs as transactions rather than hard copies and 

so the automation process must be improved. ACTION: DLA ICPs and the Defense 

Distribution Center (DDC) will look for trends by originating activity and notify Judy Reger so 

that corrective action can be taken by the Army to ensure the proper research is accomplished 

prior to submission. 

d. UID Program Office Overview Briefing/ Policy Guidance for IUID Discrepancies. 

Ms. Lydia Dawson, from the UID Program Office, provided the Committee with a briefing on 

the status of the IUID program and accomplishments for FY 2006. This was followed by a 

general discussion of the impact of IUID policy on SDR business rules. Ms. Hilert explained 

that there are two aspects which must be addressed in overarching guidance. The first is where 

the discrepancy is directly related to the IUID requirements and, especially, when the material is 

being provided under a new procurement. Policy updates have been suggested by DLMSO 

which are consistent with current procedures for handling material where the contractor is in 

non-compliance (e.g. required IUID mark is missing or does not agree with shipment 

information provided). The second issue is where the other types of discrepancies occur in 

material for which there is an IUID requirement. It is not currently clear when and what data 

must be carried in the SDR. Provisions are being made to pass the UII and the serial number; 

however other pieces of associated data may be desired and have been mapped to the 

transactions. DLMSO believes that condition-related discrepancies should include UII/serial, 

but it is less clear whether it should be included for all or only selected other discrepancy 

situations (e.g. packaging discrepancies). ACTION: DLMSO will continue to participate with 

DUSD(L&MR)SCI and the UID Program Office toward synchronization of UID/RFID/SIM 

policy and provide feedback to the SDR Committee. 

e. WebSDR Responder Role Confirmation Process Proposed By DAASC. Ms. 

Dawn Kohlbacher, DAASC SDR Program Manager, briefed proposed procedures for approving 

responder role access for WebSDR. Currently the System Access Request (SAR) required for 

access to WebSDR identifies submitter and responder roles. Basic submitter access does not 

require Service approval (except for Navy customers who are referred to NAVSUP). The 

responder role (that is, the capability to reply with disposition/resolution via direct web input) 

requires specific approval from the Component’s SDR point of contact (POC). Obtaining 

approval requires manual intervention and is a work load issue for DAASC. The proposed 

approach would provide for two generic mailboxes, one for the Air Force, which has a large 
5

volume of requests, as they use the web exclusively for replies, and another for all others as most 

of those replies come from a Service system rather than the web. When the SAR has been 

approved by DAASC (after the basic information assurance check) and requires Service approval 

for responder access, an e-mail will be sent to the individual Component’s email address 

notifying the POC to check their responder access mailbox in order to approve/disapprove the 

request. Access to the generic boxes will be available to multiple Component POCs with 

approval authority. Ms. Kohlbacher confirmed that access is automatically re-validated and after 

for 180 days an inactive account is disabled. 

f. Joint Component Instruction. Ms. Hilert had asked the committee members to 

review the instruction, which has been updated to include WebSDR functionality, DLMS 

changes issued in the past year, and other administrative changes. After Component review and 

further update, we will need to work together to finalize and coordinate through publication 

changes. ACTION: Components should provide preliminary comments by January 30, 2007. 

 

 g. DLMS Manual, Chapter 17, Supply Discrepancy Reporting. Ms. Hilert told 

recommended that we should complete this update to the joint instruction and then work to 

rescind it in favor of the DLMS Manual. She asked all Components to review the updated 

manual. Information is comparable to that in the joint instruction, but the layout is different and 

generally well-received., and the capability to hyperlink to reference data is considered a bonus. 

The chapter has already been submitted to DLA publications as Change 4 to the DLMS manual, 

but suggested improvements are still welcome. ACTION: Components should review and 

provide comments by January 15, 2007. Subsequent to the meeting, comments were received 

from NAVSUP and these are being incorporated in the final version. 

 h. DLMS Change Proposals. Ms. Hilert provided an overview of how the DLMS 

change process works. Discussion included a number of SDR-related DLMS changes currently 

under development, in staffing, and awaiting implementation. Status is also posted to the 

DLMSO Web site: http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/eLibrary/Changes/Qtrly_Status_Rpts/ 

DLMSStatus06_ baseline.doc. Changes below are listed in numerical sequence where Proposed 

DLMS Change (PDC)/Approved DLMS Change (ADC) numbers are assigned. 

 (1) PDC under Development for DLA-Entered SDR Query. There is a PDC in 

development by DLA to provide a query to identify and measure the number of SDRs input by 

DLA Customer Interaction Center or other DLA personnel on behalf of customers who are still 

using hard copy or other reporting methods. The purpose of this change is to identify high 

volume customers using hard copies and try to encourage them to use WebSDR. ACTION: 

DLA will define their requirements. DAASC will help with determining best method to extract 

the desired information. 

 (2) PDC under Development for Air Force Distribution Copy. The Air Force 

is writing a PDC which would create a drop down menu on WebSDR to trigger an information 

copy of SDRs to appropriate Logistics Support Centers (LSC). This change would help alleviate 

problems of Air Force Bases receiving duplicate shipments or receipts not-from-due generally 

connected to a MICAP shipment directed by the LSC. The receiving activity submits an SDR to 

the shipping activity which is another Air Force Base or a depot; however, the source of the 
6

problem is actually within the LSC process. ACTION: USAF will develop the PDC with 

further explanation of their requirement. 

 (3) ADC 128, Revised SDR Transaction Exchange (Formats, Codes and

Unique Identification (UID) (Supply/SDR). This PDC established new discrepancy and reply 

codes related to IUID SDRs. Ms. Hilert indicated that this ADC has not been fully implemented, 

but the new discrepancy codes are implemented in DSS and Business Systems Modernization 

(BSM). Many of these discrepancy codes are not being properly used during web input due to a 

generic interpretation by the customer. ACTION: Ms. Hilert will develop a note for WebSDR 

clarifying the usage. 

 (4) ADC 144, SDR transaction Exchange Business Rules (Supply/SDR). This 

change removes submission time constraints for UID discrepancies and updates the joint 

guidance to reflect transition to processing of SDRs as standard logistics transactions. The 

revisions to the joint instruction are reflected in the draft version under review. 

 (5) ADC 158, Requirement for Prepositioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) 

Transactions. This change required Distribution Depots (DDs) to submit an SDR to the ICP 

when new procurement material is received without prior Prepositioned Material Receipt (PMR). 

Other unexpected receipts, including returns and/or redistributions which are not ICP/IMM 

directed and unscheduled returns to/from maintenance may be reported by prior direction of the 

owner/manager. This change has been implemented. 

 (6) ADC 174, Inclusion of Data Supporting UID of Items in DS 842A/W, 

SDR WebSDR. This change updates business processes using DOD WebSDR and the DS 

842A/W to carry unique item Identifier (UII) data for unique identification (UID) of assets. 

The change will allow for entry of the UII, serial number and/or batch/lot data elements on the 

WebSDR screen or a transaction driven interface for multiple discrepant items on a single report. 

Also included is the capability to identify a data associated with each specific item (one of the 

following): Warranty Expiration Date, Shelf-Life Expiration Date or Date Pack. Design work is 

currently underway for Distribution Standard System (DSS) update to implement retention of 

IUID content within the SDR transaction associated with receipt of IUID material. During the 

discussion it was verified that the Warranty Expiration Date is only applicable to the Security 

Assistance quality-related SDRs. ACTION: DLMSO and DLA will work with the DSS to 

specify IUID data requirements for the future DSS release. 

 

 (7) Draft PDC 176A, Mandatory Identification of Detail Level Packaging 

Discrepancy Codes of USAF DOD WebSDR Users. This change requires mandatory 

identification of four-digit packaging discrepancy sub-codes in WebSDR rather than the twodigit packaging (P) type codes. The original staffing was not well-received and was put on hold. 

After discussion, it was agreed by the Committee that the requirement is now feasible and would 

not be manually intensive for the submitter; therefore, the PDC will be re-staffed for mandatory 

use for extended packaging codes within automated systems. An exception will still be needed 

where the original report was created via hard-copy. ACTION: Ms Hilert will update the PDC 

and re-staff. 
7

 (8) ADC 181A, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) SDR for Quality Deficiencies 

including Latent Defects. This change documents the intent of the ICP/IMM to process quality 

related SDR under the Products Quality Deficiency Reports (PPQDR) procedures. In addition, 

the change required substantiating documentation be submitted for latent defect SDRs and 

provides a list of applicable forms of substantiating documentation. During the discussion of this 

change, Ms. Hilert indicated that teleconference is required between the Service FMS POCs and 

DLMSO to discuss the Air Force Security Assistance Command (AFSAC) interface with 

WebSDR. Testing of this SDR interface with the NAVSEA PDREP application is about to 

begin. ACTION: Further discussion to clarify business rules with specific attention to the reply 

will be scheduled for late January/February timeframe. 

 (9) ADC 184, Redistribution Order (RDO) based Supply Discrepancy 

Reports (SDRs). This change establishes a new category of SDR (Type) R and applicable 

routing rules. It provides specific business rules for a short shipment, over shipment, and wrong 

material shipment for resolution by the shipping depot. In addition, for specific discrepancies 

where material is placed in a suspended condition, and the SDR is directed to the SoS. During 

discussion, a Navy concern for receipt of an information copy was resolved (no copy is required 

where the report is forwarded to the shipping depot; a copy of the reply is already provided and 

will be adequate for ICP processing). No action; this change has been fully implemented. 

 (10) ADC 187, Revise SDR Reply Procedures for Forwarding SDRs to New 

Action Activity, E-mail Addresses and Source of Supply. This change documents the use of 

WebSDR to generate/distribute a new report when the original was sent to the wrong action 

activity; provides for additional e-mail address in the transaction to allow for distribution of 

reports and replies; and requires the SOS to be inserted in the reply by the DD. No action; this 

change has been fully implemented. 

 (11) ADC 188, Distribution Depot Q Receipt SDRs. This approved change 

formally recognizes a unique process previously employed between the DDs and DLA ICPs. It 

assigns new Q-series discrepancy codes applicable for stock screening discrepancy reporting to 

Components via SDR and SQCR to eliminate the dual-use conflict with Security Assistance 

SDRs. The DD report quality deficient material or potentially deficient material discovered at 

receipt using the SDR process and, for those deficiencies discovered in storage, the SQCR 

process is used. Ms. Hilert indicated that other Services should consider using this process for 

reporting their quality discrepancies. Ms. Albert, from DLA described a process done at some of 

the DSS depots which are co-located with the Air Force which requires depot personnel to 

process a receipt in DSS and then update the Air Force PQDR System which is very labor 

intensive. Mr. Weiner from the DDC emphasized that he would like the process to be standard 

at all the depots. DLMS, DAASC, and DLA have been working with the Air Force to test an 

interface with the Air Force PQDR application using the SDR Q-series email. ACTION: DLA 

will work with AF to finalize their requirements and submit a new proposal to identify the new 

routing rule. If this proves successful, further study for an interface with PDREP should be 

considered. 

 (12) ADC 196, Business Rules for SDRs Resulting from Lateral 

Redistribution Order (LRO) for DLA Managed, Non-Army Managed Item (NAMI) Owned 
8

Material. This change, which defines new routing rules, is applicable only for DLA directed 

LRO shipments under the Total Asset Visibility (TAV) Program where the material is managed 

by DLA but owned by the NAMI Product Support Integration Directorate (NAMI-PSID) and 

shipped from an Army site. SDRs, as a result of these types of shipments will be routed to 

NAMI as the action activity. All other SDRs as a result of redistributions under TAV will be 

sent to the ICP/IMM. ACTION: The type code used to identify these SDRs will be revised 

under a follow-on proposal. This change is not fully implemented and is considered high on the 

list for SDR priority changes for DAASC action. 

 (13) ADC 206, Discrepancy Reporting for Wood Packing Materiel (WPM). 

This OSD mandated change establishes procedures and a new discrepancy code to be used for 

reporting shipments containing non-compliant WPM. No action; the code is now available in 

automated systems. The procedures are included in the draft instruction under review. 

 (14) ADC 207, New Discrepancy Codes for Identification of Hazardous 

Material. This change establishes new discrepancy codes to identify supply and storage 

discrepancies which pertain specifically to discrepant hazardous material identified at time of 

receipt or in storage. No action; the codes are now available in automated systems. The 

procedures are included in the draft instruction under review. 

 (15) ADC 210 (and Proposed Addendum 210A), Defense Reutilization and 

Marketing Service (DRMS) and National Inventory Management Strategy (NIMS) 

Shipment Types Identified for SDR Processing under DLMS. This change modifies 

WebSDR and the DLMS 842 transactions to add the capability to identify specific types of SDR 

as a sub-type of the original basic Type Document Code using a two digit code. It also 

provides a format for a DRMS query/report. Subsequent to the meeting Ms. Hilert discussed 

this change with the Navy, DAASC and DLA and asked when the change could be implemented. 

The Navy indicated they would have to get back to her regarding when they could implement. 

DSS will implement with the 7.1 release which is the last week in January 2007. BSM has not 

prioritized the change and was unable to provide an implementation date. SAMMS will not 

implement as it is a legacy system. Ms. Hilert has purposed a revised addendum (210B) to the 

change which will be sent out for comments/concurrence. This addendum does not impact ADC 

210 reporting for DRMS material which may be implemented at any time. The primary purpose 

of the new addendum is to convert to one-position type codes to minimize data base changes and 

to establish interim process rules for use where not all systems can accept the new values. 

ACTION: DLMSO and DLA are working to finalize 210B for coordination. 

 

 (16) DRAFT PDC 212, Duplicate SDR Criteria. Ms. Hilert expressed 

continue concern for lack of standard business rules to determine duplicate criteria for a SDR 

transactions. The problem is complex as different systems have different rules for what 

constitutes a duplicate. The issue is further complicated by the DSS use of partial shipments 

which may have different discrepancies reported over a period of time which differ by 

Transportation Control Number (TCN), but not document number/suffix. To the customer these 

may seem to be separate SDRs, and DLA systems will accept them as such; however, Service 

systems would not. After discussion, the Committee agreed to proceed with the PDC to include 

basic document number edits and complete duplication of an existing record. Remaining 
9

business rules will require additional research and Component agreement on the best approach. 

ACTION: Components provide duplicate criteria currently employed in their systems and 

explain how changes and cancellations work. DLMSO will finalize PDC 212 as agreed and 

release for staffing. 

 (17) PDC 230A, Passive Radio Frequency Identification (pRFID) 

Discrepancy Codes. This proposed change which has been staffed, establishes new discrepancy 

codes for discrepancies related to passive RFID tags. Ms. Hilert requested and received approval 

during the meeting. ACTION: DLMSO will finalize and publish the ADC. 

 (18) PDC 231A, Discrepancy Disposition/Status (Reply) Code Revisions. This 

proposed change which has been staffed, modifies and adds Disposition/Status Codes available 

for use in SDR replies. Ms. Hilert requested and received approval during the meeting. 

ACTION: DLMSO will finalize and publish the ADC. 

 (19) PDC 240, DOD WebSDR Requirement for DLA Information Copy. This 

PDC which is out for staffing proposes to correct a DLA problem, but may be applicable to other 

systems. The change establishes procedures for WebSDR to create and transmit an information 

copy of an SDR in response to a reply reject code sent to DAASC. The reject condition is 

applicable when the SOS is DLA (Routing Identifier SMS); the DD is the action activity when 

DLA can not process the DD reply due to lack of a record establishing the basic report. Once the 

information copy is provided by DAAS, DLA will reprocess the reply to update records. 

ACTION: Components should provide response to the PDC staffing. 

 i. SDR and Equipment and Maintenance Inspection Worksheet, DA Form 2404. 

BACKGROUND: Currently, at DDs co-located with Army maintenance sites, there is a unique 

SDR procedure for documenting missing and damaged material associated with major end items, 

e.g. tanks. When an Army unit returns a tank, a depot employee inspects the tank and fills out a 

DA Form 2404, Equipment Inspection and Maintenance Worksheet, which indicates the NSNs 

and cost of the items missing from the tank. In addition a SF 364, SDR is prepared in DSS and a 

hard copy of the SF 364 along with the DA 2404 is e-mailed to the Army ICP. At the Army ICP, 

the SDR and the DA 2404 data must be input into the AEPS System. DISCUSSION: Ms. 

Hilert indicated that it is possible to replace the DA 2404 Form with the DLMS 842 using 

additional loops (there is already a capability to carry two iterations of missing component 

information, but this may not be compatible with DSS). Another alternative would be to provide 

AEPS access to the DD; there would be issues to resolve in making sure the information is 

recorded in DSS and WebSDR if AEPS becomes the entry tool. ACTION: Further discussion 

is needed on this topic and DLMSO/DAASC/Army/DDC/DLA will participate in a conference 

call in January 2007. 

j. Reports and Management Tools. Ms. Hilert requested that the Committee consider 

future requirements for inquiry capability and advise DLMSO of any sensitive information on 

the data base that should be protected. Ms. Albert has submitted ideas for the WebSDR report 

functionality which will need to be coordinated with the Components. ACTION: DLMSO will 

review Ms Albert’s information to determine if sufficient information is available for staffing a 

DLMS change. 
10

j. Wrap-up. Ms Hilert expressed gratitude to the participants for their contribution to 

making this a successful and informative meeting. The next meeting is tentatively planned for 

April 2007. 

 

 

_____/signed/____________ Approved:_________ /signed/______________ 

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP 

Supply PRC Chair Director 

 Defense Logistics Management 

 Standards Office 

Enclosure